U.S. District Court – Judicial Watchhttp://www.judicialwatch.org
Because no one is above the law!Tue, 26 Sep 2017 20:14:52 +0000en-UShourly1Judicial Watch Accuses Obama Administration of Misleading Court on Hillary Clinton Email Scandalhttp://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-accuses-obama-administration-of-misleading-court-on-hillary-clinton-email-scandal/
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-accuses-obama-administration-of-misleading-court-on-hillary-clinton-email-scandal/#respondThu, 26 Mar 2015 20:14:47 +0000http://www.judicialwatch.org/?post_type=press_release&p=74632(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch accused the Obama administration of stalling and withholding information from a federal court in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01242)), seeking former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and top aide’s emails. Last week, Judicial Watch attorneys sought a status conference over the issue of the Hillary...

]]>(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch accused the Obama administration of stalling and withholding information from a federal court in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01242)), seeking former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and top aide’s emails. Last week, Judicial Watch attorneys sought a status conference over the issue of the Hillary Clinton’s and other secret email accounts in order to “avoid further undue delays, prejudice and potential spoliation.” In response, the Justice Department, on behalf of the State Department, told the federal court handling the matter (U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth) that there was no need for a hearing until at least late April and that, contrary to statements by Mrs. Clinton and various administration spokesmen, it was not aware of the secret email issue until recently. In its response (Reply in Support of a Motion for a Status Conference), Judicial Watch cited Mrs. Clinton’s press statement:

Secretary Clinton was the head of the agency and the State Department cannot claim it was unaware of the State Department’s failure to records-manage agency emails from the Office of the Secretary. In fact, the “Statement from the Office of Former Secretary Clinton” states that “[h]er usage [of non-“state.gov” email for State Department business] was widely known to the over 100 Department and U.S. government colleagues she emailed.”

Judicial Watch also accused the Obama administration of continuing to thwart the FOIA:

The State Department has yet to demonstrate how it is satisfying its obligations under FOIA in light of recent revelations that Secretary Clinton’s emails were not being properly managed, retained and produced. This also applies to emails received or sent by other officials or employees within the Secretary’s office to conduct government business who used non-“state.gov” email addresses. To determine the adequacy of the State Department’s search, both Judicial Watch and the Court should be informed by the Department directly of the details surrounding the retention of agency emails within the Office of the Secretary and the extent of the Department’s ability to search, request and retrieve those records …

Had Judicial Watch not challenged the State Department’s search, this case would most likely have been dismissed before any public revelations were made about the unlawful arrangement relating to the State Department’s handling of agency emails during Secretary Clinton’s tenure at the State Department …

[T]he State Department has still not responded to Judicial Watch’s request to confirm whether its supplemental search includes all non-“state.gov” email addresses used by other officials or employees within the Secretary’s office for government business …

To the extent that Secretary Clinton used her non-“state.gov” email address to communicate with State Department employees outside her office who used “state.gov” email addresses, the State Department would also have to conduct agency wide searches to respond properly to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request.

Judicial Watch also is concerned that documents might be lost because of the State Department’s misconduct:

Time is of the essence in this case. The statement by former Secretary Clinton during a press conference that she did not preserve approximately 30,000 emails she sent or received through her non-“state.gov” email address she used exclusively to conduct government business is a matter of public record – not [as the State Department alleged] “conjecture.” Only last week, the State Department publically disclosed that it was unable to automatically archive the emails of most of its senior officials until last month. This is also a matter of public record – not conjecture. The State Department has still not informed the Court or Judicial Watch whether it has undertaken any efforts to retrieve agency emails from non-“state.gov” email addresses used by other officials or employees within the Office of the Secretary during the relevant time period or from other employees within the agency. The State Department needs to request these agency records immediately in light of the Department’s history of poor records-management and preservation of agency records.

Judicial Watch also shoots down the contention that Hillary Clinton’s alleged removal of the records would prevent them from being subject to FOIA. There is no precedent for the head of an agency “purposefully rout[ing] a document out of agency possession in order to circumvent a FOIA request.” In fact, there is precedent for a court allowing discovery into the circumventing of FOIA, as happened in Judicial Watch’s historic FOIA lawsuit against the Clinton Commerce Department. In that case, Judge Lamberth “already found that discovery was appropriate where it was ‘designed to explore the extent to which [the Department of Commerce (“DOC”)]…illegally destroyed and discarded responsive information, and possible methods for recovering whatever responsive information still exists outside of the DOC’s possession.’”

“The Obama administration’s fraud, misconduct and misrepresentation on the Hillary Clinton email scandal continues in federal court,” stated Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton. “Our independent litigation exposed the email scandal and just forced, for the first time, the Obama administration to admit accountability for at least some of the records Hillary Clinton concealed from the American people.”

]]>http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-accuses-obama-administration-of-misleading-court-on-hillary-clinton-email-scandal/feed/0HUD Sued for Records of Obama Administration Involvement in Controversial St. Paul, MN, Housing Discrimination Casehttp://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/hud-sued-for-records-of-obama-administration-involvement-in-controversial-st-paul-mn-housing-discrimination-case/
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/hud-sued-for-records-of-obama-administration-involvement-in-controversial-st-paul-mn-housing-discrimination-case/#respondTue, 13 Nov 2012 19:44:18 +0000http://www.judicialwatch.org/?post_type=press_release&p=14663 (Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a lawsuit (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (No. 1:12-cv-01785)) on November 2, 2012, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to force compliance with an...

]]>(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a lawsuit (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (No. 1:12-cv-01785)) on November 2, 2012, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to force compliance with an April 4, 2012, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for documents relating to possible collusion between the Obama administration and the city of St. Paul, MN, in withdrawing a “disparate impact” appeal pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. HUD has refused all JW FOIA requests for public records, even after JW paid in advance for the information.

The disparate impact case arose from a lawsuit by a St. Paul minority contractor claiming that the city’s targeted enforcement of the city’s housing code against rental units reduced the availability of low-income rentals, with a disparate impact upon African-Americans. The Eighth Circuit found in the contractor’s favor, after which the city appealed to the Supreme Court. Generally speaking, under a disparate impact analysis, an entity can be found to have engaged in discriminatory activity for practices that merely have a “disparate impact” on protected minorities, irrespective of any intentional bias.

The Obama DOJ then intervened, apparently persuading St. Paul to take the extraordinary step of withdrawing its cert petition from the Supreme Court docket. On February 13, the Wall Street Journal reported that various federal officials had asked the City of St. Paul to withdraw its petition forcertiorari in a controversy that had already been slated for argument before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Obama administration’s concern, explained the article, was that a legal theory known as “disparate impact” might either: 1) harden into law as used by the landlords who had won at the state level or 2) be eviscerated entirely. Apparently, several federal agencies that rely on that legal theory to secure out-of-court settlements in the consumer lending and family housing arena were reluctant to risk a change in the legal landscape. The next day, the parties to Magner v. Gallagher withdrew their case by mutual consent.

Judicial Watch separately obtained documents under the Minnesota Data Practices Act, showing that St. Paul City Attorney Sara Grewing arranged a meeting between the chief of DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, Tom Perez, and Mayor Chris Coleman a week before the city’s withdrawal from the case, captioned Magner v. Gallagher. Following Perez’s visit, the city withdrew its case and thanked DOJ and officials at HUD for their involvement.

On April 4, Judicial Watch sent a FOIA request to the DOJ and HUD seeking access to the following:

All communications with or about St. Paul, Minnesota, its residents, landlords, low-income properties or employees, specifically those exchanges:

a. relating to the city’s recent petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, including the petition’s withdrawal in February 2012;

c. involving any member of the U.S. Senate’s Democratic Policy & Communications Committee, the House Democratic Caucus, or the White House, and their respective staffs; and,

d. involving third parties such as the National Low Income Housing Coalition, Thomas Goldstein, orWalter Mondale and their respective staffs;

2. All invoices for travel, food, lodging, communications, or entertainment expenses incurred in connection with any “disparate impact” lawsuit against St. Paul, Minnesota.

In filing its FOIA request, JW requested a waiver of both search and duplication fees, citing its role as a member of the news media. On June 11, 2012, HUD denied JW’s waiver request, informing JW that it would be required to pay a $1,024.43 fee before HUD would release any records.

On June 21, 2012, JW appealed HUD’s denial of a waiver request. On July 23, HUD denied JW’s appeal, and on July 31, JW paid the waiver fee in full.

Despite payment in full, and despite repeated inquiries from JW about the status of its FOIA request, HUD has continued to refuse to release of the documents requested by JW.

“We have reason to believe that the Obama administration improperly and successfully pressured St. Paul city officials to take the extremely rare action of withdrawing an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The Obama administration and its liberal activist allies are desperate to protect their ability to use the discredited ‘disparate impact’ legal standard in lawsuits in order to shakedown businesses and reward allies.”